According to the article, there was only ONE theater which put the film on two screens at a time, for ONE showing. FreeReign was suggesting, incorrectly I believe, that the per-screen numbers would be lower than my numbers because he thought my numbers were per-theater numbers, and not per-screen numbers.
I was trying to find out if he had any evidence that theaters had the movie on multiple screens, because if they didn’t, the per-theater and per-screen numbers would be the same anyway, and we wouldn’t have the argument. I am ignoring the one dual-screen showing, as it was a single instance, and not a screen available all the time (if you said “11 screens” you’d skew the numbers).
I have no idea why, based on a response to a person who seemed to confuse theaters with screens, you chose to claim that I hadn’t read the article, when in fact I’ve read this article, the previous article, and found two other articles that I used to cross-check my numbers and get further information.
I was simply trying a polite way of continuing the conversation with a freeper, rather than your typical response.
Ten theaters, and yes, one of them did use more than one screen, it was in the article.